Dedicated severe asthma services improve health-care use and quality of life

Mixed-methods evaluation of an enhanced asthma biologics clinical pathway in the West Midlands UK

Biologic treatments can alleviate severe asthma symptoms and reduce health service use. However, service capacity limits and low referral rates from primary care indicate unmet patient need. We report a mixed-methods evaluation of an enhanced severe asthma pathway implemented in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, UK which aimed to optimise primary care referrals through training/education, and increased capacity in specialist clinics. Quantitative analysis assessed patient wait times between pathway stages, prescribing changes, exacerbations, hospital admissions and asthma control. Interviews with 12 stakeholders evaluated perceptions of the enhanced pathway across settings. In 12 months, 564 patients from 28 general practices were reviewed for biologics eligibility, of whom 125 (22.2%) were referred for specialist assessment. Wait times were significantly lower under the enhanced pathway when compared against historic patients following the standard pathway, and reduced overall from a mean of 76.4 to 26.7 weeks between referral and biologics initiation (p < 0.001). Patients commencing biologics (n = 46) showed significantly reduced reliever inhaler prescribing rates (p = 0.037), 60% lower oral steroid use (p < 0.001), significantly reduced exacerbation rates (p < 0.001) and fewer hospital admissions (p < 0.001) compared with the 12 months pre-treatment. Mean asthma control scores reduced from 3.13 pre-initiation to 1.89 post-initiation (p < 0.001) - a clinically significant improvement. Interviewees viewed the enhanced pathway positively, although ongoing issues related to difficulties engaging primary care amid concerns around increased workloads and pathway capacity. The large number of referrals generated from a comparatively small number of general practices confirms substantial unmet need that an enhanced severe asthma pathway could help address if implemented routinely.

Treatable Traits in Pregnant Women with Asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic respiratory disease in pregnancy, affecting approximately 8-10% of pregnant women. Uncontrolled asthma is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, including low birth weight, preterm birth, and maternal complications such as pre-eclampsia.

SUMMARY

A current approach to the management of chronic airway diseases is based on targeting treatable traits. The aim of this review was to define treatable traits in pregnant women with asthma based on recent literature and to determine personalized treatment options according to these traits. Traits addressed in this review that may improve asthma control and pregnancy outcomes are fractional exhaled nitric oxide-based asthma monitoring and treatment, medication adherence and inhalation technique, impaired lung function, smoking cessation and comorbidity including psychological conditions (depression and anxiety), obesity, rhinitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps, and sleep apnea.

KEY MESSAGES

All the treatable traits discussed have the potential to improve asthma control and pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women with asthma. Further research is needed to determine which management approaches are best to improve asthma control during pregnancy, to identify other relevant treatable traits, and to determine whether the treatable trait approach is feasible and beneficial in pregnant women with asthma.

Factors associated with aeroallergen testing among adults with asthma in a large health system

Background

Aeroallergen testing informs precision care for adults with asthma, yet the epidemiology of testing in this population remains poorly understood.

Objective

We sought to identify factors associated with receiving aeroallergen testing, the results of these tests, and subsequent reductions in exacerbation measures among adults with asthma.

Methods

We used electronic health record data to conduct a retrospective, observational cohort study of 30,775 adults with asthma who had an office visit with a primary care provider or an asthma specialist from January 1, 2017, to August 26, 2022. We used regression models to identify (1) factors associated with receiving any aeroallergen test and tests to 9 allergen categories after the index visit, (2) factors associated with positive test results, and (3) reductions in asthma exacerbation measures in the year after testing compared with before testing.

Results

Testing was received by 2201 patients (7.2%). According to multivariable models, receiving testing was associated with having any office visit with an allergy/immunology specialist during the study period (odds ratio [OR] = 91.3 vs primary care only [P < .001]) and having an asthma emergency department visit (OR = 1.62 [P = .004]) or hospitalization (OR = 1.62 [P = .03]) in the year before the index visit. Age 65 years or older conferred decreased odds of testing (OR = 0.74 vs age 18-34 years [P = .008]) and negative test results to 6 categories (P ≤ .04 for all comparisons). Black race conferred increased odds of testing (OR =1.22 vs White race [P = .01]) and positive test results to 8 categories (P < .04 for all comparisons). Exacerbation measures decreased after testing.

Conclusion

Aeroallergen testing was performed infrequently among adults with asthma and was associated with reductions in asthma exacerbation measures.

Pharmaceutical care and asthma: Protocol of an umbrella review of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that pharmacists' interventions in asthma patients have a positive impact on health-related outcomes. Nevertheless, the association is not well established and the role of clinical pharmacists is poorly represented, as well as severe asthma patients. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews is to identify published systematic reviews assessing the impact of pharmacists' interventions on health-related outcomes measured in asthma patients, as well as to describe key components of the interventions, the outcomes assessed and any associations between pharmacists' interventions and health-related outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library will be searched from inception to December 2022. Systematic reviews of all study designs, severity of asthma and level of care that measured health-related outcomes will be considered. Methodological quality will be assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Two independent investigators will perform the study selection, quality assessment and data collection, any discrepancy will be solved by a third investigator. Both narrative findings and meta-analysis of primary study data included in the systematic reviews will be synthesized. If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, the measures of association will be expressed as the risk ratio and difference in means.

DISCUSSION

The first results on the establishment of a multidisciplinary network for the management of asthmatic patients have shown the benefits of integrating different levels of care in disease control and morbidity reduction. Further studies showed benefits in hospital admissions, patients' basal oral corticosteroid dose, exacerbations and quality of life of asthma patients. A systematic review is the most appropriate design in order to summarize the literature and identify the evidence of the benefits of interventions performed by clinical pharmacists in asthma patients, especially those with severe uncontrolled asthma, and encourage future studies to stablish the role of clinical pharmacists in asthma units.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

Systematic review registration number: CRD42022372100.

Pharmaceutical care and asthma: Protocol of an umbrella review of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that pharmacists' interventions in asthma patients have a positive impact on health-related outcomes. Nevertheless, the association is not well established and the role of clinical pharmacists is poorly represented, as well as severe asthma patients. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews is to identify published systematic reviews assessing the impact of pharmacists' interventions on health-related outcomes measured in asthma patients, as well as to describe key components of the interventions, the outcomes assessed and any associations between pharmacists' interventions and health-related outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library will be searched from inception to December 2022. Systematic reviews of all study designs, severity of asthma and level of care that measured health-related outcomes will be considered. Methodological quality will be assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Two independent investigators will perform the study selection, quality assessment and data collection, any discrepancy will be solved by a third investigator. Both narrative findings and meta-analysis of primary study data included in the systematic reviews will be synthesised. If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, the measures of association will be expressed as the risk ratio and difference in means.

DISCUSSION

The first results on the establishment of a multidisciplinary network for the management of asthmatic patients have shown the benefits of integrating different levels of care in disease control and morbidity reduction. Further studies showed benefits in hospital admissions, patients' basal oral corticosteroid dose, exacerbations and quality of life of asthma patients. A systematic review is the most appropriate design in order to summarise the literature and identify the evidence of the benefits of interventions performed by clinical pharmacists in asthma patients, especially those with severe uncontrolled asthma, and encourage future studies to stablish the role of clinical pharmacists in asthma units.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

Systematic review registration number: CRD42022372100.

Healthcare resources, organisational support and practice in asthma in six public health clinics in Malaysia

Asthma, a common chronic respiratory illness is mostly managed in primary care. We aimed to determine healthcare resources, organisational support, and doctors' practice in managing asthma in a Malaysian primary care setting. A total of six public health clinics participated. We found four clinics had dedicated asthma services. There was only one clinic which had a tracing defaulter system. Long-term controller medications were available in all clinics, but not adequately provided. Resources, educational materials, and equipment for asthma management were present, though restricted in number and not placed in main locations of the clinic. To diagnose asthma, most doctors used clinical judgement and peak flow metre measurements with reversibility test. Although spirometry is recommended to diagnose asthma, it was less practiced, being inaccessible and unskilled in using as the main reasons. Most doctors reported providing asthma self-management; asthma action plan, but for only half of the patients that they encountered. In conclusion, there is still room for improvement in the provision of clinic resources and support for asthma care. Utilising peak flow metre measurement and reversibility test suggest practical alternative in low resource for spirometry. Reinforcing education on asthma action plan is vital to ensure optimal asthma care.

Predictors of change in asthma-related quality of life: a longitudinal real-life study in adult asthmatics

PURPOSE

Asthma negatively impacts health-related quality of life (HRQL). The objective is to investigate the longitudinal relationship between HRQL in asthma and disease control, demographic and clinical objective parameters in an adult population in real-life settings.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal study on adult asthmatics recruited from Liege University Hospital Asthma Clinic (Belgium) between 2011 and 2019. We selected those who had two visits and completed two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the asthma control test (ACT) and the mini asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) (n = 290). AQLQ was the dependent variable. Demographic, functional and inflammatory characteristics, asthma control, and exacerbations were the independent variables. We applied generalized linear mixed models to identify the factors associated with change in AQLQ and its dimensions.

RESULTS

Median (IQR) time interval between the two visits was 7 (5-19) months. Overall, median (IQR) global AQLQ increased from 4.1 (3-5.1) to 4.6 (3.4-5.9) (p < 0.0001). All AQLQ dimensions significantly improved, apart the environmental one. AQLQ improved in patients who had both step-up and step-down pharmacological treatment as well as in patients reporting no change between the two visits. The fitted models indicated that change in ACT was the main predictor of change in AQLQ (p < 0.0001). A rise in 3 units in ACT predicted an improvement of 0.5 AQLQ (AUC-ROC = 0.85; p < 0.0001). Change in BMI inversely impacted global AQLQ (p < 0.01) and its activity dimension (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Asthma control and BMI are key predictors of asthma quality of life acting in an opposite direction. AQLQ may improve without step-up in the pharmacological treatment.

Systemic corticosteroids in asthma: A call to action from World Allergy Organization and Respiratory Effectiveness Group

Systemic corticosteroids (SCS) are a highly effective treatment for acute exacerbations and long-term symptom control in asthma. Long-term SCS use is highly prevalent across all asthma severities, occurring in over 20% of patients with severe or uncontrolled disease globally. It is now well known that exposure to both long-term and repeated acute courses of SCS is associated with a high risk of serious adverse effects (AEs), such as osteoporosis, and metabolic and cardiovascular complications, especially when prescribed onto a background of other corticosteroids. The aim of this call-to-action article, endorsed by the World Allergy Organization and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group, is to review the accumulating evidence on the burden of SCS on patients with asthma and provide an overview of potential strategies for implementing SCS Stewardship. Primary prevention of exacerbations and improvement of asthma control is a key first step in achieving SCS Stewardship, by optimizing maintenance asthma medications and addressing modifiable risk factors, such as adherence and inhaler technique. Other key elements of SCS Stewardship include increasing appropriate specialist referrals for multidisciplinary review, assessment of biomarkers, and consideration of oral corticosteroid-sparing add-on therapies (eg, biologics). In cases where SCS use is deemed clinically justified, it should be tapered to the lowest possible dose. In addition, patients receiving long-term SCS or frequent acute courses should be closely monitored for emergence of SCS-related AEs. Because of the extensive data available on the costly and burdensome AEs associated with SCS use, as well as the range of treatment options now available, there is a need for healthcare providers (HCPs) to carefully evaluate whether the benefits of SCS outweigh the potential harms, to adopt SCS-sparing and Stewardship strategies, and to consider alternative therapies where possible. Development of a structured and collaborative SCS Stewardship approach is urgently required to protect patients from the potential harm of SCS use.

Benefits of specialist severe asthma management: demographic and geographic disparities

BACKGROUND

The benefits of specialist assessment and management have yet to be evaluated within the biologic era of UK severe asthma treatment, and potential disparities have not been considered.

METHODS

In an uncontrolled before-and-after study, we compared asthma symptoms (Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6)), exacerbations, unscheduled secondary care use, lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)) and oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose after 1 year. We compared outcomes by sex, age (18-34, 35-49, 50-64 and ≥65 years), ethnicity (Caucasian versus non-Caucasian) and hospital site after adjusting for demographics and variation in biologic therapy use.

RESULTS

1140 patients were followed-up for 1370 person-years from 12 specialist centres. At annual review, ACQ-6 score was reduced by a median (interquartile range (IQR)) of 0.7 (0.0-1.5), exacerbations by 75% (33-100%) and unscheduled secondary care by 100% (67-100%). FEV1 increased by a median (IQR) of 20 (-200-340) mL, while OCS dose decreased for 67% of patients. Clinically meaningful improvements occurred across almost all patients, including those not receiving biologic therapy. There was little evidence of differences across demographic groups, although those aged ≥65 years demonstrated larger reductions in exacerbations (69% versus 52%; p<0.001) and unscheduled care use (77% versus 50%; p<0.001) compared with patients aged 18-34 years. There were >2-fold differences between the best and worst performing centres across all study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialist assessment and management is associated with substantially improved patient outcomes, which are broadly consistent across demographic groups and are not restricted to those receiving biologic therapy. Significant variation exists between hospitals, which requires further investigation.

Racial Inequities in Asthma Care

Racial inequities in asthma care are evolving as a recognized factor in long-standing inequities in asthma outcomes (e.g., hospitalization and mortality). Little research has been conducted regarding the presence or absence of racial inequities among patients seen in asthma specialist settings, this is an important area of future research given that asthma specialist care is recommended for patients experiencing the poor asthma outcomes disproportionately experienced by Black and Hispanic patients. This study provides a systematic review of racial asthma care inequities in asthma epidemiology, clinical assessment, medication prescription, and asthma specialist referral practices.

Multimorbidity in Difficult Asthma: The Need for Personalised and Non-Pharmacological Approaches to Address a Difficult Breathing Syndrome

Three to ten percent of people living with asthma have difficult-to-treat asthma that remains poorly controlled despite maximum levels of guideline-based pharmacotherapy. This may result from a combination of multiple adverse health issues including aggravating comorbidities, inadequate treatment, suboptimal inhaler technique and/or poor adherence that may individually or collectively contribute to poor asthma control. Many of these are potentially "treatable traits" that can be pulmonary, extrapulmonary, behavioural or environmental factors. Whilst evidence-based guidelines lead clinicians in pharmacological treatment of pulmonary and many extrapulmonary traits, multiple comorbidities increase the burden of polypharmacy for the patient with asthma. Many of the treatable traits can be addressed with non-pharmacological approaches. In the current healthcare model, these are delivered by separate and often disjointed specialist services. This leaves the patients feeling lost in a fragmented healthcare system where clinical outcomes remain suboptimal even with the best current practice applied in each discipline. Our review aims to address this challenge calling for a paradigm change to conceptualise difficult-to-treat asthma as a multimorbid condition of a "Difficult Breathing Syndrome" that consequently needs a holistic personalised care attitude by combining pharmacotherapy with the non-pharmacological approaches. Therefore, we propose a roadmap for an evidence-based multi-disciplinary stepped care model to deliver this.

Documento de consenso de asma grave en adultos. Actualización 2022

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous syndrome with several clinical variants and often represents a complex disease requiring a specialized and multidisciplinary approach, as well as the use of multiple drugs. The prevalence of severe asthma varies from one country to another, and it is estimated that 50% of these patients present a poor control of their disease. For the best management of the patient, it is necessary a correct diagnosis, an adequate follow-up and undoubtedly to offer the best available treatment, including biologic treatments with monoclonal antibodies. With this objective, this consensus process was born, which began in its first version in 2018, whose goal is to offer the patient the best possible management of their disease in order to minimize their symptomatology. For this 2020 consensus update, a literature review was conducted by the authors. Subsequently, through a two-round interactive Delphi process, a broad panel of asthma experts from SEPAR and the regional pulmonology societies proposed the recommendations and conclusions contained in this document.

Multidisciplinary care in chronic airway diseases: the Newcastle model

Chronic airway diseases including, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are prevalent and high burden conditions with the majority of patients successfully managed in the primary care setting. However, some patients with more complex disease such as difficult-to-treat or severe asthma, or complex COPD, tertiary care is required. This review provides an overview of the successful tertiary care multidisciplinary respiratory service that operates in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, which has been integrated into the tertiary care outpatient clinics for almost three decades. The service is multifaceted in terms of the clinical care it provides, and includes an “Inpatient service”, “Asthma Management Service”, “Difficult Airway Clinic”, “Drug Administration Clinic”, “Rapid Access Clinic”, “Pulmonary Rehabilitation” and has an integrated research programme. The core of the multidisciplinary approach to airway diseases is a person-centred model of care, the “Treatable Traits” approach. The staffing of this service comprises of consultant physicians, respiratory advanced trainees, respiratory scientists, physiotherapists, speech pathologists, nurse specialists and a nurse consultant. Patients that present to this service undergo an initial assessment and clinical review by team members, synthesis of relevant data, and development of a diagnosis and management plan. Based on this review specific interventions are determined according to the traits identified. Overtime the service has evolved to accommodate the increasing numbers of patients requiring access to the “Difficult Airways Clinic” assessment and therapies. This has been facilitated by partnered with the Centres of Excellence in Severe Asthma and Treatable Traits to develop educational and practice management tools.

Trends and predictors of specialist assessments in oral corticosteroid treated asthma among young adults

Background

Repeated oral corticosteroid use indicates uncontrolled disease among asthma patients and referral for asthma specialist assessment is recommended. We aimed to describe trends and predictors associated with specialist contacts among young adults with asthma and repeated oral corticosteroid use.

Methods

Individuals aged 18–45 years with ≥2 dispensed asthma medication prescriptions and two dispended oral corticosteroid prescriptions (including short-term and long-term treatments) within 12 months during 1999–2018 were identified by use of Danish healthcare registers. The frequency of specialist contacts within 1 year of follow-up was assessed among individuals without previous specialist contacts within 5 years of inclusion. Factors associated with specialist contact were identified by logistic regression models. Furthermore, oral corticosteroid prescriber sources were assessed.

Results

For the 11 223 individuals included, 2444 (22%) had previous specialist contacts care within 5 years prior of inclusion and additionally 926 (8.3%) within 1 year of follow-up. Among those without previous specialist contacts (n 8779), the frequency of incident specialist contacts within 1 year of follow-up increased from 6.3% in 1999 to 18% in 2017. Factors associated with incident specialist contacts included dispensing ≥12 SABA canisters and previous asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations. The majority of oral corticosteroid prescriptions at baseline (71%) were prescribed by general practitioners, though with decreasing proportions from 1999–2018.

Conclusions

The majority (70%) of young adults with asthma and repeated oral corticosteroid use do not seem to receive specialist assessment in Denmark. This highlights a potential room for improvement in the patient referral pathway for at-risk asthma patients.

Effectiveness of Interventions Targeting Treatable Traits for the Management of Obstructive Airway Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of obstructive airway diseases (OADs) is complex. The treatable traits (TTs) approach may be an effective strategy for managing OADs.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of interventions targeting TTs for managing OADs.

METHODS

Ovid Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and CINAHL Plus were searched from inception to March 9, 2022. Studies of interventions targeting at least 1 TT from pulmonary, extrapulmonary, and behavioral/lifestyle domains were included. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data and performed risk-of-bias assessments. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore heterogeneity and to determine the effects of outlying studies.

RESULTS

Eleven studies that used the TTs approach for OAD management were identified. Traits targeted within each study ranged from 13 to 36. Seven controlled trials were included in meta-analyses. TT interventions were effective at improving health-related quality of life (mean difference [MD] = -6.96, 95% CI: -9.92 to -4.01), hospitalizations (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.69), all-cause-1-year mortality (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.95), dyspnea score (MD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.46 to -0.12), anxiety (MD = -1.61, 95% CI: -2.92 to -0.30), and depression (MD = -2.00, 95% CI: -3.53 to -0.47).

CONCLUSION

Characterizing TTs and targeted interventions can improve outcomes in OADs, which offer a promising model of care for OADs.

Characteristics, phenotypes, mechanisms and management of severe asthma

ABSTRACT

Severe asthma is "asthma which requires treatment with high dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus a second controller (and/or systemic corticosteroids) to prevent it from becoming 'uncontrolled' or which remains 'uncontrolled' despite this therapy." The state of control was defined by symptoms, exacerbations and the degree of airflow obstruction. Therefore, for the diagnosis of severe asthma, it is important to have evidence for a diagnosis of asthma with an assessment of its severity, followed by a review of comorbidities, risk factors, triggers and an assessment of whether treatment is commensurate with severity, whether the prescribed treatments have been adhered to and whether inhaled therapy has been properly administered. Phenotyping of severe asthma has been introduced with the definition of a severe eosinophilic asthma phenotype characterized by recurrent exacerbations despite being on high dose ICS and sometimes oral corticosteroids, with a high blood eosinophil count and a raised level of nitric oxide in exhaled breath. This phenotype has been associated with a Type-2 (T2) inflammatory profile with expression of interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13. Molecular phenotyping has also revealed non-T2 inflammatory phenotypes such as Type-1 or Type-17 driven phenotypes. Antibody treatments targeted at the T2 targets such as anti-IL5, anti-IL5Rα, and anti-IL4Rα antibodies are now available for treating severe eosinophilic asthma, in addition to anti-immunoglobulin E antibody for severe allergic asthma. No targeted treatments are currently available for non-T2 inflammatory phenotypes. Long-term azithromycin and bronchial thermoplasty may be considered. The future lies with molecular phenotyping of the airway inflammatory process to refine asthma endotypes for precision medicine.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on severe asthma care in Europe: will care change for good?

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put pressure on healthcare services, forcing the reorganisation of traditional care pathways. We investigated how physicians taking care of severe asthma patients in Europe reorganised care, and how these changes affected patient satisfaction, asthma control and future care.

Methods

In this European-wide cross-sectional study, patient surveys were sent to patients with a physician-diagnosis of severe asthma, and physician surveys to severe asthma specialists between November 2020 and May 2021.

Results

1101 patients and 268 physicians from 16 European countries contributed to the study. Common physician-reported changes in severe asthma care included use of video/phone consultations (46%), reduced availability of physicians (43%) and change to home-administered biologics (38%). Change to phone/video consultations was reported in 45% of patients, of whom 79% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Of 709 patients on biologics, 24% experienced changes in biologic care, of whom 92% were changed to home-administered biologics and of these 62% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Only 2% reported worsening asthma symptoms associated with changes in biologic care. Many physicians expect continued implementation of video/phone consultations (41%) and home administration of biologics (52%).

Conclusions

Change to video/phone consultations and home administration of biologics was common in severe asthma care during the COVID-19 pandemic and was associated with high satisfaction levels in most but not all cases. Many physicians expect these changes to continue in future severe asthma care, though satisfaction levels may change after the pandemic.

Difficult-to-Control Asthma Management in Adults

The management of difficult-to-control asthma remains a significant challenge, which frequently requires the input of the wider multidisciplinary team. This review covers the importance of systematic assessment, phenotyping, treatment options at step 4, an overview of biologics and novel therapies for type 2 (T2) inflammation, and nonpharmacological interventions. Once people have been identified as suffering from difficult-to-control asthma, it is important to use the systematic assessment process to allow accurate diagnosis and optimization of adherence as well as identification and treatment of any relevant comorbidities. Before initiating a biologic, it is important to optimize inhaled therapies and sufficiently phenotype individual patients to allow for the logical use of biologic agents targeting T2 inflammation. For patients who either do not have evidence of T2 inflammation or remain symptomatic despite biologics, attention should be paid to the available nonpharmacological interventions. Difficult-to-treat asthma remains an area of significant unmet need, but improvements in models of service delivery and the ongoing pharmacological pipeline are causes for significant optimism that sooner rather than later there will no longer be asthmatic patients who are difficult to treat.

The Korean Severe Asthma Registry (KoSAR): real world research in severe asthma

Severe asthma constitutes a serious health burden with significant morbidity and socioeconomic costs. The development and introduction of new biologics targeting type 2 inflammation changed the paradigm for management of severe asthma and initiated a biological era. These changes impose a challenge to clinicians in managing difficult-to-treat and severe asthma. To understand the characteristics and heterogeneity of severe asthma and to develop a better strategy to manage it, the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Working Group on Severe Asthma, has organized the Korean Severe Asthma Registry (KoSAR). In this review, we describe the challenges of severe asthma management regarding diagnosis, disease burden, heterogeneity, guidelines, and organization of severe asthma clinics. This review also examines the current global activities of national and regional registries and study groups. In addition, we present the KoSAR vision and organization and describe the findings of KoSAR in comparison with those of other countries.

Investigating the Outcomes of an Asthma Educational Program and Useful Influence in Public Policy

The study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of an asthma educational program for asthma control, asthma self-management, asthma knowledge, and patient activation. The study analyzes different demographic variables with the purpose of investigating which asthma patients performed better than others. Based on these demographic characteristics, the study provides several recommendations for various stakeholders. The study is based on a positivist approach since its purpose is to investigate the consequences of an asthma educational program with a view to generalizing the results to a larger population. The study targets public and private hospitals which have applied the asthma educational program in collaboration with the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA). Multiple questionnaires were deployed 263 valid responses were received from patients of public and private hospitals using online and offline data collection method. Several parametric and non-parametric tests were carried out in terms of data analysis. The results reveal that patients in the intervention group obtained high scores and were therefore more knowledgeable and able to control their asthma compared to the control group. Overall, patients in the intervention group performed better in terms of asthma control, asthma self-management and knowledge and awareness. There was a high level of patient activation in this group. In the context of demographic features, it was found that patients who are married and are undergraduate degree holders in employment scored high compared to patients who were young, single, post-graduate degree holders that were mainly self-employed. The results of this study can guide policy makers, SINA authorities, and hospitals as to which demographic category of asthma patients require immediate attention. The significance of asthma educational programmes has increased especially through social media platforms as the number of adult patients continues to increase day by day.

A systematic literature review of burden of illness in adults with uncontrolled moderate/severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There are limited published data on the burden of moderate/severe uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review to better understand the impact of moderate-to-severe asthma in the US, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan, and Australia in terms of prevalence, clinical measures, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and economic burden, for patients whose asthma is uncontrolled despite inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy.

RESULTS

The prevalence of uncontrolled asthma among patients with moderate/severe disease varied but was as high as 100% in some subgroups. Patients with uncontrolled asthma generally had poor lung function (mean/median pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]: 1.69-2.45 L; mean/median pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV₁: 57.2-79.7). There was also a substantial but variable exacerbation burden associated with uncontrolled asthma, with the annualised rate of exacerbations ranging from 1.30 to 7.30 when considering various patient subgroups. Furthermore, the annualised rate of severe exacerbations ranged from 1.66 to 3.60. The HRQoL burden measured using disease-specific and generic instruments consistently demonstrated substantial impairment of HRQoL for those with uncontrolled asthma; Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores ranged from 3.00 to 5.20, whilst EurQol-5 Dimensions index scores ranged from 0.53 to 0.59. Direct, indirect and total costs together with consumption of other healthcare resources associated with managing uncontrolled asthma were also substantial in the population studied; no caregiver burden was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that significant unmet needs exist for patients with uncontrolled asthma despite the availability of ICS/LABA therapy. Novel treatments are needed to help reduce the burden to patients, healthcare systems and society.

Oral corticosteroids stewardship for asthma in adults and adolescents: A position paper from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are frequently used for asthma treatment. This medication is highly effective for both acute and chronic diseases, but evidence indicates that indiscriminate OCS use is common, posing a risk of serious side effects and irreversible harm. There is now an urgent need to introduce OCS stewardship approaches, akin to successful initiatives that optimized appropriate antibiotic usage. The aim of this TSANZ (Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand) position paper is to review current knowledge pertaining to OCS use in asthma and then delineate principles of OCS stewardship. Recent evidence indicates overuse and over-reliance on OCS for asthma and that doses >1000 mg prednisolone-equivalent cumulatively are likely to have serious side effects and adverse outcomes. Patient perspectives emphasize the detrimental impacts of OCS-related side effects such as weight gain, insomnia, mood disturbances and skin changes. Improvements in asthma control and prevention of exacerbations can be achieved by improved inhaler technique, adherence to therapy, asthma education, smoking cessation, multidisciplinary review, optimized medications and other strategies. Recently, add-on therapies including novel biological agents and macrolide antibiotics have demonstrated reductions in OCS requirements. Harm reduction may also be achieved through identification and mitigation of predictable adverse effects. OCS stewardship should entail greater awareness of appropriate indications for OCS prescription, risk-benefits of OCS medications, side effects, effective add-on therapies and multidisciplinary review. If implemented, OCS stewardship can ensure that clinicians and patients with asthma are aware that OCS should not be used lightly, while providing reassurance that asthma can be controlled in most people without frequent use of OCS.

Clinical, functional and inflammatory evaluation in asthmatic patients after a simple short-term educational program: a randomized trial

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical evolution, functional parameters and inflammatory activity of asthma in patients who submitted to an educational intervention. 58 adult patients over 18 years of age with partly controlled and uncontrolled asthma were randomized into an intervention group (IG) (N = 32) and a control group (CG) (N = 26) and evaluated for 12 weeks. The Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), Asthma Quality Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) questionnaires were applied. Spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide (NO), exhaled breath condensate (EBC) and induced sputum (IS), measurement of the peak flow and symptoms were performed. The IG patients received an educational activity for 30 min applied by a nurse. Statistical analysis: analysis of variance with repeated intragroup measures. IG presented a decreased number of eosinophils in IS and IL-17A in EBC, an increase in the percentage of FEV1 before and after bronchodilator and an improvement in quality of life compared to the CG. There was an improvement in depression levels and a decrease in IL-4 and IL-5 in the IS and in the EBC in both groups. Our results suggest that an educational intervention can bring benefits concerning the control of inflammation, lung function alterations, quality of life and levels of depression in asthmatic patients. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03655392.

How I do it. Work-up of severe asthma

CASE EXAMPLE

A 56-year-old gentleman has difficult to control asthma and a history of four exacerbations in the prior 12 months despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and additional controller therapies. Is he suitable for more advanced therapeutic options?

SCOPE OF REVIEW

We herein review the clinical assessment of a patient with suspected severe asthma, discuss factors contributing to poor asthma control and how biomarkers assist in disease investigation and stratification.

HOW I DO IT

The key components of our multidisciplinary approach are to confirm an asthma diagnosis and adherence to treatment, to assess any contributing comorbidities or confounding factors, and to stratify what type of asthma our patient has. The combination of spirometry and repeated measures of key biomarkers of type-2 airway inflammation - the blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide - identifies whether poor disease control is driven by uncontrolled, ICS-resistant type-2 airway inflammation or ongoing airflow obstruction. A failure to elicit evidence of either suggests an alternative driver for the patient's symptoms including chronic airway infection and non-asthma causes. Each phenotype represents a treatable trait that requires a specific targeted approach. Critically, steroids can cause harm and their use should be guided by objective evidence of inflammation rather than symptoms alone.

CASE CONCLUSION

After assessment of treatment adherence and exclusion of relevant comorbidities, the patient was found to have severe asthma with ICS-resistant type-2 airway inflammation. We will consider additional treatment options at our next appointment (Part 2/2 of this How I Do It series).

Severe asthma assessment, management and the organisation of care in Australia and New Zealand: expert forum roundtable meetings

Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on individuals, families and the healthcare system. Treatment is complex, due to disease heterogeneity, comorbidities and complexity in care pathways. New approaches and treatments improve health outcomes for people with severe asthma. However, emerging multidimensional and targeted treatment strategies require a reorganisation of asthma care. Consensus is required on how reorganisation should occur and what areas require further research. The Centre of Excellence in Severe Asthma convened three forums between 2015 and 2018, hosting experts from Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The forums were complemented by a survey of clinicians involved in the management of people with severe asthma. We sought to: (i) identify areas of consensus among experts; (ii) define activities and resources required for the implementation of findings into practice; and (iii) identify specific priority areas for future research. Discussions identified areas of unmet need including assessment and diagnosis of severe asthma, models of care and treatment pathways, add-on treatment approaches and patient perspectives. We recommend development of education and training activities, clinical resources and standards of care documents, increased stakeholder engagement and public awareness campaigns and improved access to infrastructure and funding. Further, we propose specific future research to inform clinical decision-making and develop novel therapies. A concerted effort is required from all stakeholders (including patients, healthcare professionals and organisations and government) to integrate new evidence-based practices into clinical care and to advance research to resolve questions relevant to improving outcomes for people with severe asthma.

The impact of comorbidities on severe asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe asthma is often associated with numerous comorbidities that complicate disease management and affect patient's outcomes. They contribute to poor disease control and mimic asthma symptoms. Although some comorbidities such as obstructive sleep apnea, bronchiectasis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are generally well recognized, many other may remain undiagnosed but may be detected in an expert specialist setting. The management of comorbidities seems to improve asthma outcomes, and optimizes therapy by avoiding overtreatment. The present review provides recent knowledge regarding the most common comorbidities which are associated with severe asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Comorbidities are more prevalent in severe asthma than in mild-to-moderate disease or in the general population. They can be grouped into two large domains: the pulmonary domain and the extrapulmonary domain. Pulmonary comorbidities include upper respiratory tract disorders (obstructive sleep apnea, allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, nasal polyposis) and middle/lower respiratory tract disorders (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis and fungal sensitization, bronchiectasis, dysfunctional breathing). Extrapulmonary comorbidities include anxiety, depression, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, obesity, cardiovascular, and metabolic diseases.

SUMMARY

The identification of comorbidities via multidimensional approach is needed to initiate appropriate multidisciplinary management of patients with severe asthma.

Using routinely collected primary care records to identify and investigate severe asthma: a scoping review

Shielding during the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the potential of routinely collected primary care records to identify patients with 'high-risk' conditions, including severe asthma. We aimed to determine how previous studies have used primary care records to identify and investigate severe asthma and whether linkage to other data sources is required to fully investigate this 'high-risk' disease variant. A scoping review was conducted based on the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Twelve studies met all criteria for inclusion. We identified variation in how studies defined the background asthma cohort, asthma severity, control and clinical outcomes. Certain asthma outcomes could only be investigated through linkage to secondary care records. The ability of primary care records to represent the entire known asthma population is unique. However, a number of challenges need to be overcome if their full potential to accurately identify and investigate severe asthma is to be realised.

Smartphone App for monitoring Asthma in children and adolescents

PURPOSE

The asthma stepwise treatment approach recommended is based on monitoring patients' symptoms. The Asthma Research in Children and Adolescents (ARCA) cohort was created to provide evidence about the evolution of persistent asthma. This manuscript describes the development of an electronic health tool, comprising a mobile health application for patients with asthma and its associated online platform for pediatricians to monitor them.

METHODS

The development process followed 7 phases: the first 5 (Conceptualization, Preparation, Assessment scheduling, Image and user interface, and Technical development) defined and designed the tool, followed by a testing phase (functionality assessment and pilot test with ARCA patients), and a last phase which evaluated usability. Since the target population was aged 6-16 years, three versions were designed within the same smartphone application: parents/proxy, children, and adolescents. The online platform for pediatricians provides real-time information from the application: patients' responses over time with color-coded charts (red/amber/green, as in traffic lights).

RESULTS

The pilot test through semi-structured phone interviews of the first 50 participants included in the ARCA study (n = 53) detected their misunderstandings. Pediatricians were trained to emphasize that the application is free of charge and requires monthly answers. Median of the System Usability Scale scores (n = 85), ranging 0 (negative)-100 (positive), was > 93 in the three age versions of the application.

CONCLUSIONS

Technology has the capability of transforming the use of patient-reported outcomes. Describing all the development phases of a mobile health application for monitoring children and adolescents with asthma may increase the knowledge on how to design applications for young patients.

Applying personalized medicine to adult severe asthma

Background: Severe asthma is a heterogeneous disease that consists of various phenotypes driven by different pathways. Associated with significant morbidity, an important negative impact on the quality of life of patients, and increased health care costs, severe asthma represents a challenge for the clinician. With the introduction of various antibodies that target type 2 inflammation (T2) pathways, severe asthma therapy is gradually moving to a personalized medicine approach. Objective: The purpose of this review was to emphasize the important role of personalized medicine in adult severe asthma management. Methods: An extensive research was conducted in medical literature data bases by applying terms such as "severe asthma" associated with "structured approach," "comorbidities," "biomarkers," "phenotypes/endotypes," and "biologic therapies." Results: The management of severe asthma starts with a structured approach to confirm the diagnosis, assess the adherence to medications and identify confounding factors and comorbidities. The definition of phenotypes or endotypes (phenotypes defined by mechanisms and identified through biomarkers) is an important step toward the use of personalized medicine in asthma. Severe allergic and nonallergic eosinophilic asthma are two defined T2 phenotypes for which there are efficacious targeted biologic therapies currently available. Non-T2 phenotype remains to be characterized, and less efficient target therapy exists. Conclusion: Despite important progress in applying personalized medicine to severe asthma, especially in T2 inflammatory phenotypes, future research is needed to find valid biomarkers predictive for the response to available biologic therapies to develop more effective therapies in non-T2 phenotype.

Potential Severe Asthma Hidden in UK Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma may be underrecognized in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

Identify and quantify patients with potential severe asthma (PSA) in UK primary care, the proportion not referred, and compare primary care patients with PSA with patients with confirmed severe asthma from UK tertiary care.

METHODS

This was a historical cohort study including patients from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (aged ≥16 years, active asthma diagnosis pre-2014) and UK patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry (UK-ISAR aged ≥18 years, confirmed severe asthma in tertiary care). In the OPCRD, PSA was defined as Global INitiative for Asthma 2018 step 4 treatment and 2 or more exacerbations/y or at Global INitiative for Asthma step 5. The proportion of these patients and their referral status in the last year were quantified. Demographic and clinical characteristics of groups were compared.

RESULTS

Of 207,557 Optimum Patient Care Research Database patients with asthma, 16,409 (8%) had PSA. Of these, 72% had no referral/specialist review in the past year. Referred patients with PSA tended to have greater prevalence of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist add-ons (54.1 vs 39.8%), and experienced significantly (P < .001) more exacerbations per year (median, 3 vs 2/y), worse asthma control, and worse lung function (% predicted postbronchodilator FEV₁/forced vital capacity, 0.69 vs 0.72) versus nonreferred patients. Confirmed patients with severe asthma (ie, UK patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry) were younger (51 vs 65 years; P < .001), and significantly (P < .001) more likely to have uncontrolled asthma (91.4% vs 62.5%), a higher exacerbation rate (4/y [initial assessment] vs 3/y), use inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist add-ons (67.7% vs 54.1%), and have nasal polyposis (24.2% vs 6.8) than referred patients with PSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Large numbers of patients with PSA in the United Kingdom are underrecognized in primary care. These patients would benefit from a more systematic assessment in primary care and possible specialist referral.

Characterisation of patients with severe asthma in the UK Severe Asthma Registry in the biologic era

Background

The UK Severe Asthma Registry (UKSAR) is the world’s largest national severe asthma registry collecting standardised data on referrals to UK specialist services. Novel biologic therapies have transformed the management of type 2(T2)-high severe asthma but have highlighted unmet need in patients with persisting symptoms despite suppression of T2-cytokine pathways with corticosteroids.

Methods

Demographic, clinical and treatments characteristics for patients meeting European Respiratory Society / American Thoracic Society severe asthma criteria were examined for 2225 patients attending 15 specialist severe asthma centres. We assessed differences in biomarker low patients (fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) <25 ppb, blood eosinophils <150/μL) compared with a biomarker high population (FeNO ≥25 ppb, blood eosinophils ≥150/µL).

Results

Age (mean 49.6 (14.3) y), age of asthma onset (24.2 (19.1) y) and female predominance (62.4%) were consistent with prior severe asthma cohorts. Poor symptom control (Asthma Control Questionnaire-6: 2.9 (1.4)) with high exacerbation rate (4 (IQR: 2, 7)) were common despite high-dose treatment (51.7% on maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS)). 68.9% were prescribed biologic therapies including mepolizumab (50.3%), benralizumab (26.1%) and omalizumab (22.6%). T2-low patients had higher body mass index (32.1 vs 30.2, p<0.001), depression/anxiety prevalence (12.3% vs 7.6%, p=0.04) and mOCS use (57.9% vs 42.1%, p<0.001). Many T2-low asthmatics had evidence of a historically elevated blood eosinophil count (0.35 (0.13, 0.60)).

Conclusions

The UKSAR describes the characteristics of a large cohort of asthmatics referred to UK specialist severe asthma services. It offers the prospect of providing novel insights across a range of research areas and highlights substantial unmet need with poor asthma control, impaired lung function and high exacerbation rates. T2-high phenotypes predominate with significant differences apparent from T2-low patients. However, T2-low patients frequently have prior blood eosinophilia consistent with possible excessive corticosteroid exposure.

Clinical and Inflammatory Features of Exacerbation-Prone Asthma: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Multidimensional Assessment

BACKGROUND

Reducing asthma exacerbations is a major target of current clinical guidelines, but identifying features of exacerbation-prone asthma (EPA) using multidimensional assessment (MDA) is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To systemically explore the clinical and inflammatory features of adults with EPA in a Chinese population.

METHODS

We designed a cross-sectional study using the Severe Asthma Web-based Database from the Australasian Severe Asthma Network (ASAN). Eligible Chinese adults with asthma (n = 546) were assessed using MDA. We stratified patients based on exacerbation frequency: none, few (1 or 2), and exacerbation prone (≥3). Univariate and multivariable negative binomial regression analyses were performed to investigate features associated with the frequency of exacerbations.

RESULTS

Of 546 participants, 61.9% had no exacerbations (n = 338), 29.6% had few exacerbations (n = 162), and 8.4% were exacerbation prone (n = 46) within the preceding year. EPA patients were characterized by elevated blood and sputum eosinophils but less atopy, with more controller therapies but worse asthma control and quality of life (all p < 0.05). In multivariable models, blood and sputum eosinophils (adjusted rate ratio = 2.23, 95% confidence interval = [1.26, 3.84] and 1.67 [1.27, 2.21], respectively), FEV1 (0.90 [0.84, 0.96]), bronchodilator responsiveness (1.16 [1.05, 1.27]), COPD (2.22 [1.41, 3.51]), bronchiectasis (2.87 [1.69, 4.89]), anxiety (2.56 [1.10, 5.95]), and depression (1.94 [1.20, 3.13]) were found. Further, upper respiratory tract infection (1.83 [1.32, 2.54]) and food allergy (1.67 [1.23, 2.25]) were at high risk of asthma symptom triggers.

CONCLUSION

EPA is a clinically recognizable phenotype associated with several recognizable traits that could be addressed by targeted treatment.

Screening Social Determinants of Health in a Multidisciplinary Severe Asthma Clinical Program

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Asthma is the most common cause of chronic disease in children and has high healthcare utilization costs. Minority children living in poverty have a higher asthma burden. These health disparities are associated with the social determinants of health (SDH). A severe asthma clinic was implemented at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego to determine whether a multidisciplinary approach, including an asthma home visit addressing SDH, would lead to decreased healthcare utilization in terms of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations.

The Hidden Burden of Severe Asthma: From Patient Perspective to New Opportunities for Clinicians

Severe asthma is an important topic in respiratory diseases, due to its high impact on morbidity and mortality as well as on health-care resources. The many challenges that still exist in the management of the most difficult-to-treat forms of the disease, and the acknowledgement of the existence of unexplored areas in the pathophysiological mechanisms and the therapeutic targets represent an opportunity to gather experts in the field with the immediate goals to summarize current understanding about the natural history of severe asthma and to identify gaps in knowledge and research opportunities, with the aim to contribute to improved medical care and health outcomes. This article is a consensus document from the “International Course on Severe Asthma” that took place in Palermo, Italy, on May 10–11, 2019. Emerging topics in severe asthma were addressed and discussed among experts, with special focus on patient’s needs and research opportunities, with the aim to highlight the unanswered questions in the diagnostic process and therapeutic approach.

Systematic Literature Review of Systemic Corticosteroid Use for Asthma Management

Systemic corticosteroid use to manage uncontrolled asthma and its associated healthcare burden may account for important health-related adverse effects. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the real-world extent and burden of systemic corticosteroid use in asthma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify English-language articles published in 2010–2017, using search terms for asthma with keywords for oral corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids. Observational studies, prescription database analyses, economic analyses, and surveys on oral/systemic corticosteroid use in children (>5 yr old), adolescents (12–17 yr old), and adults with asthma were included. We identified and reviewed 387 full-text articles, and our review included data from 139 studies. The included studies were conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia. Overall, oral/systemic corticosteroids were commonly used for asthma management and were more frequently used in patients with severe asthma than in those with milder disease. Long-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use was, in general, less frequent than short-term use. Compared with no use, long-term and repeated short-term oral/systemic corticosteroid use were associated with an increased risk of acute and chronic adverse events, even when doses were comparatively low. Greater oral/systemic corticosteroid exposure was also associated with increased costs and healthcare resource use. This review provides a comprehensive overview of oral/systemic corticosteroid use and associated adverse events for patients with all degrees of asthma severity and exposure duration. We report that oral/systemic corticosteroid use is prevalent in asthma management, and the risks of acute and chronic complications increase with the cumulative oral corticosteroid dosage.

Severe Asthma Toolkit: an online resource for multidisciplinary health professionals-needs assessment, development process and user analytics with survey feedback

OBJECTIVES

Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on individuals, families and the healthcare system. New treatment and management approaches are emerging as effective options for severe asthma. Translating new knowledge to multidisciplinary healthcare professionals is a priority. We developed 'The Severe Asthma Toolkit' (https://toolkit.severeasthma.org.au) to increase awareness of severe asthma, provide evidence-based resources and support decisionmaking by healthcare providers.

SETTING

Roundtable discussions and a survey of Australians clinicians were conducted to determine clinician preferences, format and content for a severe asthma resource.

PARTICIPANTS

A reference group from stakeholder and consumer bodies and severe asthma experts provided advice and feedback. A multidisciplinary team of international experts was engaged to develop content. Written content was based on up-to-date literature. Peer and editorial review were performed to finalise content and inform web design. Website design focused on user experience, navigation, engagement, interactivity and tailoring of content for a clinical audience.

RESULTS

A web-based resource was developed. Roundtable discussions and a needs assessment survey identified the need for dedicated severe asthma management resources to support skills training. The end-product, which launched 26 March 2018, includes an overview of severe asthma, diagnosis and assessment, management, medications, comorbidities, living with severe asthma, establishing a clinic, paediatrics/adolescents and clinical resources. Analytics indicate access by users worldwide (32 169 users from 169 countries). User survey results (n=394) confirm access by the target audience (72% health professionals), who agreed the toolkit increased their knowledge (73%) and confidence in managing severe asthma (66%), and 75% are likely to use the resource in clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

The Severe Asthma Toolkit is a unique, evidence-based internet resource to support healthcare professionals providing optimal care for people with severe asthma. It is a comprehensive, accessible and independent resource developed by leading severe asthma experts to improve clinician knowledge and skills in severe asthma management.

Systematic Assessment of Difficult-to-Treat Asthma: Principles and Perspectives

Difficult-to-treat asthma affects a minority of adults and children with asthma but represents a challenging mix of misdiagnosis, multimorbidity, inadequate self-management, severe airway pathobiology, and treatment complications. Management of these patients extends beyond asthma pharmacotherapy, because multiple other patient-related domains need to be addressed as well. Such complexity can hinder adequate clinical assessment even when performed in specialist practice. Systematic assessment undertaken by specialized multidisciplinary teams brings a broad range of resources to bear on patients with difficult-to-treat asthma. Although the concept of systematic assessment is not new, practices vary considerably and implementation is not universal. Nevertheless, assessment protocols are already in place in several institutions worldwide, and outcomes after such assessments have been highly encouraging. This review discusses the rationale, components, and benefits of systematic assessment, outlining its clinical utility and the available evidence for improved outcomes. It describes a range of service configurations and assessment approaches, drawing examples from severe asthma centers around the world to highlight common essential elements. It also provides a framework for establishing such services and discusses practical considerations for implementation.

Unexpected results of a randomized quality improvement program for children with severe asthma

Objective: To assess whether an asthma intervention program reduces treatment days outside the home among children with severe asthma receiving comprehensive care (CC) in our center.Methods: Between October 21, 2014 and September 28, 2016, children with severe asthma were randomized to receive CC alone (n = 29) or CC plus the asthma intervention program (n = 34) which involved collaboration with pharmacists and school nurses, motivational interviewing, and tracking the one-second forced expiratory volume at home. All patients were followed through March 31, 2017. Frequentist and Bayesian intent-to-treat analyses were performed.Results: The asthma intervention program doubled the telephone calls between the staff and families (753 vs 356 per 100 child years for the intervention group vs. control group; Rate Ratio [RR], 2.11 [95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.45]). Yet, we found no evidence that it reduced the composite number of days of healthcare outside home which includes: clinic visits, ED visits, and hospital admissions (1179 vs 958 per 100 child-years in the intervention group vs. control group; [RR], 1.23 [95% CI, 0.82-1.84]) or secondary outcomes which are individual components (clinic visits, ED visits, hospitalizations, PICU admissions and school absences; RR 1.15 - 2.30; p > 0.05). Bayesian analysis indicated a 67% probability that the intervention program increases total treatment days outside the home and only a 14% probability of a true decrease of >20% as originally hypothesized.Conclusion: A multi-component intervention program provided to children with severe asthma failed to reduce and may have increased days of healthcare outside home and school absenteeism.

Systematic Assessment for Difficult and Severe Asthma Improves Outcomes and Halves Oral Corticosteroid Burden Independent of Monoclonal Biologic Use

BACKGROUND

Guidelines endorse systematic assessment for severe asthma, with data indicating benefit across multiple outcome domains.

OBJECTIVE

We examined which patients respond to systematic assessment and whether oral corticosteroid burden can be decreased independent of monoclonal biologic use.

METHODS

Specialist-referred patients are assessed systematically for difficult asthma at our center. We undertook a responder analysis for improvements in the domains of symptom control, quality of life, exacerbations, and airflow obstruction, assessed 6 months after initial assessment. Multivariate analyses were performed for each domain to identify predictors of response. Changes in oral corticosteroid burden were also measured, stratified by monoclonal biologics commenced during assessment.

RESULTS

Among 161 patients assessed systematically, 64% had a reduction in exacerbations, 54% achieved minimum clinically important differences for both symptom control and quality of life, and 40% increased their forced expiratory volume in 1 second by ≥100 mL. Altogether, 87% of patients with asthma improved in at least 1 domain. The most consistent predictor of response across domains was poorer baseline asthma status. There was a substantial reduction in mean chronic oral corticosteroid dose (11-5 mg, n = 46, P < .001), even after excluding 7 patients commenced on monoclonal biologics (11-5.6 mg, n = 39, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 90% of patients undergoing systematic assessment for difficult asthma improve significantly in at least 1 key asthma outcome, with few reliable predictors of response. The halving of oral corticosteroid burden during systematic assessment is independent of, and comparable in magnitude with, that achieved by monoclonal biologics.

Rational oral corticosteroid use in adult severe asthma: A narrative review

OCS play an important role in the management of asthma. However, steroid‐related AE are common and represent a leading cause of morbidity. Limited published studies suggest OCS usage varies across countries and recent registry data indicate that at least 25–60% of patients with severe asthma in developed countries may at some stage be prescribed OCS. Recent evidence indicate that many patients do not receive optimal therapy for asthma and are often prescribed maintenance OCS or repeated steroid bursts to treat exacerbations. Given the recent progress in adult severe asthma and new treatment options, judicious appraisal of steroid use is merited. A number of strategies and add‐on therapies are now available to treat severe asthma. These include increasing specialist referral for multidisciplinary assessments and implementing OCS‐sparing interventions, such as improving guideline adherence and add‐on tiotropium and macrolides. Biologics have recently become available for severe asthma; these agents reduce asthma exacerbations and lower OCS exposure. Further research, collaboration and consensus are necessary to develop a structured stewardship approach including realistic OCS‐weaning programmes for patients with severe asthma on regular OCS; education and public health campaigns to improve timely access to specialized severe asthma services for treatment optimization; and implementing targeted strategies to identify patients who warrant OCS use using objective biomarker‐based strategies.

Asthma

This review provides an evidence-based guide for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of patients with asthma. It addresses typical questions that arise in the clinic-based care of patients with asthma and provides a basic and comprehensive resource for asthma care.

Managing patients with severe asthma in Australia: Current challenges with the existing models of care

Severe asthma leads to debilitating symptoms for patients and excessive socioeconomic burden for the community. Comprehensive models of care are required to address complex issues, risk factors and comorbidities in patients with severe asthma, and to identify patients most appropriate for specialised treatments. Dedicated severe asthma services improve asthma control, reduce asthma exacerbations and hospital admissions, and improve quality of life. Currently, diverse models of care exist for managing severe asthma across Australia. Most referrals to severe asthma services are from respiratory physicians seeking a second opinion or from primary care for poorly controlled asthma. Despite benefits of specialised severe asthma services, many patients are not referred and resources are limited, often resulting in long waiting times. Patient referral is often unstructured and there are considerable variations in the management of severe asthma with limited access to other health care professionals such as speech pathologists and dieticians, and restricted scope to optimise patient work-up before referral. Ongoing communication between the specialist and referring clinician is essential for continuity of care but is often lacking. Referral pathways can be optimised by developing referral criteria and guidelines to triage patients with severe asthma and to improve resource efficiency. Additional education and tools for assessing and managing severe asthma are needed, and mechanisms should be developed for involving primary care in the management of stabilised patients. Strategies to increase patient access to multidisciplinary services are recommended.

Models of care for severe asthma: the role of primary care

Severe asthma encompasses treatment-refractory asthma and difficult-to-treat asthma. There are a number of barriers in primary, secondary and tertiary settings which compromise optimal care for severe asthma in Australia. Guidelines recommend a multidimensional assessment of severe asthma, which includes confirming the diagnosis, severity and phenotype and identifying and treating comorbidities and risk factors. This approach has been found to improve severe asthma symptoms and quality of life and reduce exacerbations. Primary care providers can contribute significantly to the multidimensional approach for severe asthma by performing spirometry, optimising therapy and addressing risk factors such as non-adherence and smoking before referring the patient to a respiratory physician for review. Primary care practitioners are encouraged to remain engaged with the management of a patient with severe asthma following specialist review by assisting with community-based allied health referrals, managing general medical comorbidities and administering prescribed biological therapies. Specialists can support primary care by providing advice to individuals with indeterminate diagnosis, streamlining investigation and management of unrecognised risk factors and complex comorbidities, optimising treatment for severe or difficult asthma including assessment of suitability for and, if appropriate, initiating advanced therapies such as biological therapies. When discharging patients back to primary care, specialists should provide clear recommendations regarding ongoing management and should specify the indications requiring further specialist review, ideally offering a streamlined re-referral pathway.

Protocol for the Wessex AsThma CoHort of difficult asthma (WATCH): a pragmatic real-life longitudinal study of difficult asthma in the clinic

Background

Asthma is now widely recognised to be a heterogeneous disease. The last two decades have seen the identification of a number of biological targets and development of various novel therapies. Despite this, asthma still represents a significant health and economic burden worldwide. Why some individuals should continue to suffer remains unclear.

Methods

The Wessex Asthma Cohort of Difficult Asthma (WATCH) is an ongoing ‘real-life’, prospective study of patients in the University Hospital Southampton Foundation Trust (UHSFT) Difficult Asthma service. Research data capture is aligned with the extensive clinical characterisation required of a commissioned National Health Service (NHS) Specialist Centre for Severe Asthma. Data acquisition includes detailed clinical, health and disease-related questionnaires, anthropometry, allergy and lung function testing, radiological imaging (in a small subset) and collection of biological samples (blood, urine and sputum). Prospective data are captured in parallel to clinical follow up appointments, with data entered into a bespoke database.

Discussion

The pragmatic ongoing nature of the WATCH study allows comprehensive assessment of the real world clinical spectrum seen in a Specialist Asthma Centre and allows a longitudinal perspective of deeply phenotyped patients. It is anticipated that the WATCH cohort would act as a vehicle for potential collaborative asthma studies and will build upon our understanding of mechanisms underlying difficult asthma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-019-0862-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Severe Asthma Global Evaluation (SAGE): An Electronic Platform for Severe Asthma

Severe asthma is complex and heterogeneous; ad hoc outpatient assessment can be suboptimal. Systematic evaluation improves outcomes and is recommended by international guidelines. Electronic templates improve physician performance and clinical processes, and may be useful in severe asthma systematic evaluation. We developed the Severe Asthma Global Evaluation (SAGE) electronic platform to streamline this process, via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). It incorporates: a questionnaire battery for patient completion before clinical consultation; asthma and comorbidity modules; a clinical summary page in an asthma management module; a nurse educator module; a structured panel discussion record; and an automatically generated report incorporating all key data. SAGE incorporates 282 clinician input fields, with a typical consultation requiring completion of 169. To streamline the process SAGE contains 34 autocalculations and 20 decision support tools. It incorporates all 95 core variables of the International Severe Asthma Registry, with which it is directly compatible. SAGE improves symptom control and exacerbations in patients with difficult asthma. In conclusion, we developed and validated an electronic platform that facilitates a comprehensive but streamlined systematic evaluation of severe asthma that is available for free download via REDCap. Its use enhances management of patients with severe asthma and facilitates audit and international research collaboration.